PDaddy wrote:Blessedassurance wrote:
To an extent, the test itself is race-neutral with regards to the language of the questionetc.
It is "race-neutral" to the extent that any person from any race or ethnicity, given the proper long-term exposure to the language, syntax/sentence structure, etc. should be able to understand the the questions as posed. The problem is that the test is not "socioeconomically neutral". Remember, i stated that there are students of all backgrounds who are disadvantaged when it comes to the LSAT.
White, suburban students raised in schools with top teachers, the best resources and educated parents/families are more likely to understand the language of the LSAT. It doesn't make them more intelligent, it simply means they are immersed in the language and it is second nature to them. And when I speak of "language", I not only mean the written language; I mean understanding the mechanics of logic.
To the white students: How many of you believe Jay-Z or Diddy could be a better lawyer than you can? They both hated school. Diddy went to Howard and dropped out. But they are both geniuses. Listening to them speak, they probably wouldn't do well on the LSAT. If there was a standardized test for music moguls, they would probably do worse than Tommy Matolla or David Geffen. But they are both on track to become billionaire entertainment moguls, and, given their starting points, they have accomplished much more than either of the latter. Larry bird didn't test well at the pre-draft workouts. He was a sorry athlete to the scouts. Look at his accomplishments! You can't "test" everything.
These pointless threads are usually started and perpetuated by jealous malcontents who can't wrap their heads around the concept that a student with lower scores and grades might nevertheless predict as a better law student and lawyer than they do, or at least be as good. If such a student got in and you didn't, the committee liked them just a little better, and they earned it. Just accept it and move on.
The LSAT is supposed to predict law school grades, and 1L grades in particular. That's it. And it does this better than any other single metric.
It is not a test of the quality of lawyer you will be, how much of a genius you are, etc. Your criticism of the LSAT is like criticizing a math test for failing to identify students who know a lot of ancient history. It is simply outside the scope of the test. You said it yourself: you can't test everything, and the LSAT is not trying to.
The fact that it can stand as a barrier to entry to some that may make great lawyers is not a problem with the test itself, but with the admissions and testing process of law schools.